A sting operation where 157 open access journals accepted a spoof research paper with obvious flaws for publication has brought the problem to the fore again. Some allege that the “author pays to publish” model of open access journals is to blame, as they profiteer from vanity publishing. Predatory journals have existed since much longer however. Online systems have just made it easier to set these up, fuelled further by an ever increasing aspiration to build one’s publication profile. The open access initiative was spurred with the philosophy of removing price barriers to scholarly literature. Nevertheless, converting the ideology into a viable business model for publishers has posed challenges.

As long as crooks exist, one can’t stress enough the need for greater awareness among authors, reviewers, and potential editors, of the problem of predatory publishing and the means to identify and avoid these journals. Widely discussed in the open access publishing community is a list of questionable publishers and journals developed by Jeffrey Beall. And frankly, this list may not be definitive. Rather than penalize journals, the ambition is to work with them towards greater transparency as per the principles laid out by the World Association of Medical Editors to help establish their authenticity. As Rajeev Kumar, editor of the Indian Journal of Urology, highlights, often the problem is not corruption, rather poor training in expected standards of peer review and journal management that allow poor science to get through. Indeed, as editors at the meeting shared, many journals are driven by sheer passion. They sustain on shoe-string budgets with editors working in an honorary capacity, and charge nominal subscriber fees and often, no author fees.

Speaking of author fees, a candid question steered the discussion further: Why do journals charge so much to publish a single research paper? As some seasoned editors explained, in determining the cost of publication, one needs to consider not just the article that is published, but also processing articles that get rejected. Supporting the editorial and publication processes of a journal enterprise requires real money. A case in point, Sandhya Srinivasan from the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics laid bare their dilemma in sustaining the journal as they deliberate discontinuing the print edition, opening up to selective ads when historically they have published none, or securing grants and support from their long time readers. Evidently, these will not be easy decisions.

In developing countries, the publication fees converted into the local currency, and without institutional or funder support, can make publishing out-of-bounds. And the model runs the danger of making them “passive recipients of science, rather than contributors to prestigious science.” In my interactions with researchers in India, I am often asked about publishing charges in BMJ journals. If it is of any reassurance, I would like to emphasize the decision to publish a paper is completely independent of authors’ ability to pay. We do appreciate the varied circumstances in which research may be done, and consider a partial or a full waiver of these fees on request. A 50% discount is offered in BMJ Open for publishing the study protocol, and subsequently the research as well. Reviewers receive a 25% discount for publishing in BMJ Open. Of modest benefit also may be that authors receive a 10% royalty for reprints.

In closing, Peush Sahni, editor of the National Medical Journal of India, summed it up that there’s no such thing as a free lunch and someone will have to pay for scholarly publishing. As a budding editor, the discussion left a fine impression on me to be conscientious in my job. I realized how every penny that goes to support my job and related activities is the money of science—someone’s access to scholarly material or another’s ability to publish.

[Note: This is an attempt to summarize key points from a panel discussion at IAMJE. I may have missed attributing specific comments to the people who brought these up.]

Hi, Anita, thanks for this well-written piece. I do want to exclude from my lists journals that “are driven by sheer passion [and] sustain on shoe-string budgets with editors working in an honorary capacity, and charge nominal subscriber fees and often, no author fees. ” If you know of any on my list that match this description, please let me know.
On the other hand, part of your essay seems to be whitewashing the problem of predatory publishers, and I don’t think this is entirely accurate. There are indeed many predatory publishers who actively attempt to scam honest researchers for their money. Attributing this activity to “poor training” is a strategy of looking the other way that will not help solve the problems.

Sandhya Srinivasan

Hi Anita, small correction: IJME has always carried ads after editorial approval. Our plans are now to seek them more actively. We will continue to monitor ads for editorial acceptability.

Chinmay shah

Very well summarize anita

Anita Jain

Thanks Sandhya for making that correction.

Anita Jain

Hi Jeffrey, thanks for reading this blog
and for sharing your views. I appreciate that you are open to the idea of
engaging with journal editors towards greater transparency in their processes. At
the annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Association of Medical Editors last
year, your list of questionable journals was discussed by editors in a session
on open access publishing. There was some angst, I’d say, that some journals
may find themselves incorrectly black-listed. So also, the list came up in
discussion at the meeting of the Indian Association of Medical Journal Editors [IAMJE]. I will let you know or ask the editors who express concerns get in touch with

you in the future.

I agree predatory publishing is a huge
problem and a danger to science at large. Though, poor training in evolving
standards of journal practices remains an issue too, at least in some regions. Indeed at the IAMJE, some editors form the WAME suggested working with such journals not to penalize, but help improve their transparency standards.